AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appeal is directed against an order dated March 08, 2018 by which a writ petition has been allowed despite the respondents not being represented.
At the outset it must be recorded that this High Court has not been functioning since or about the middle of February, 2018 on account of resolutions
adopted by the three wings of the Bar, inter alia, on account of dearth of Judges in this Court. The impasse continues. Stray matters are being taken
up upon litigants appearing in person.
There is no doubt, however, that the respondent-writ petitioner effected service on the appellants herein prior to moving the petition on March 08,
2018. The Court was satisfied as to service. It is possible that because of the present unfortunate situation, the appellants herein could not be
represented before the first Court.
The substance of the writ petitioner’s grievance was that despite the writ petitioner being willing to discharge his obligation to pay in terms of a
bond in lieu of his two-year compulsory rural service, the respondent authorities refused to return the original certificates and testimonials without
which the writ petitioner cannot pursue his further studies despite having qualified therefor. The court of the first instance found that there was no
basis for such refusal, particularly since there were other cases where the money was accepted and the relevant candidates discharged from the
obligation under the bond. It is also evident that the court was alive to the fact that the writ petitioner did not exercise his choice immediately upon
being served a notice of his posting and purported to seek his discharge several months later. There was a satisfactory explanation which was
furnished by the writ petitioner that weighed with the Court: that his mother was diagnosed with cancer in or about November, 2017 and his father
suffered a heart attack. These were the special circumstances which could have played - and did play - a role in the exercise of the discretion that
was undoubtedly available to the Court of the first instance.
The judgment and order impugned cannot be regarded as one permitting a candidate bound by a bond to exercise his option several months after
receiving his letter of posting. The judgment and order impugned have to be seen in the special circumstances of this particular case and the agony
and turmoil in the life of the writ petitioner around the time that he received his letter of posting.
The appellants submit that there are 4000 posts that remain vacant and if candidates go through the subsidised education provided by the State and
throw some money on the face of the State after completing the initial education, the rural health services would suffer and the greater public policy
that the State seeks to achieve would be defeated.
It does not appear that the judgment and order impugned can be regarded as recognising an absolute right of a candidate to exercise his choice
whenever he wants to obtain discharge of his obligation under the bond that he executes in favour of the State. The special circumstances involved in
the matter have to be looked into and the discretion exercised on this count does not appear to be perverse or warrant interference in this appeal.
The only fault, if at all, that can be found with the judgment and order impugned is that the writ petition was disposed of despite the respondents
thereto not being represented. It is true that the Court of the first instance found that the respondents had been served and had chosen not to be
represented; but the Court may have taken the present situation into account and passed the same order without disposing of the writ petition.
Accordingly, the order impugned dated March 08, 2018 is not interfered with in substance but the recording therein that the writ petition stands
disposed of is set aside and directions are issued for filing affidavits. It is also made clear that the money that is to be paid by the petitioner to the State
in terms of the order impugned will be received without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the appellants herein in the pending petition. The no-
objection that the writ petitioner will enjoy will also be subject to the final result of the writ petition.
Affidavits-in-opposition to the writ petition be filed within four weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
F.M.A. 855 of 2018 and CAN 2077 of 2018 are disposed of as above.
It is submitted by Dr. Ajoy Kumar Chakraborty, Director of Health Service, Govt. of West Bengal, who appears in person in support of the appeal,
that the original documents and testimonials necessary for the writ petitioner to attend his counselling for his further studies would be made over in
course of office hours on April 05, 2018, subject to the deposit of the bond of Rs.20 lakh.
There will be no order as to costs.